As a lay person myself, while being introduced to the subject of synesthesia, I found certain correlations that were uncanny to me within the way I had been displaying this site here.

We know we can adopt many things by insinuation alone and that is not what I wanted to show here, but the actual responsibility in researching consciousness as it is being held too here with the investigation by Richard E. Cytowic, M.D.

So I pull the following paragraph from his book to demonstrate, that what he holds in terms in methodology, is no less then that required in our research to all the sciences involved. As I research physics/consciousness within context of this site also. I draw the paragraph because it made a impression for responsibility, and by insinuation, I would not like to leave this area without giving it this attention as set.

There is a responsibility toward oneself as you investigate the world around you.

So by example Richard E. Cytowic, giving the circumstance of his research on the subject of synesthesia, had to incorporate the valuations assigned within that paragraph I selected. To show the information, displayed as I travelled through the book, was a historical as well as explanatory method on what would become one's consensus as of today.

There is a Physical Matter Called the Brain

It is interesting to speak about emotion and at the same time think about the physical consequences "within the body" that causes us the consternations of our moods and it's effect on our consciousness.

Because I may relate the issues of emotion in context the alchemist, it is by such developmental aspect of the psychology that I would want one to think about the thinking process as having a direct physiological consequence.

While I mention the woodcuts, the "labels" serve us well here to show that a picture can become a road map to the psychological, as well, demonstrating the experience itself, as well laid out "ideals" with which we could begin to approach our actions, as consequences. To what can become, and has been deeply buried to this point by the impact of that emotion/memory.

So giving some indication of the "metaphoric relation" applied to the psychology of a situation, I thought it best that while relating the road map to a "wood cut" that I show this expressionism at work as well. It is interesting to see how the psychologist speaks directly to the human condition?

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Not everyone will understand the title of this post? I will proceed to make this "exceptionally clear" once all of the post is completed. Some who visit will understand "something is nagging from the subconscious" to look at this even more. I do this on purpose by proposing the title and all "subsequent information a little later" as I am short on time as well.

You needed to know that any human endeavour to try and understand the self we need help sometimes, and I have no one who will do this work for me. I had to go looking for it. To realize the "synchronicity within of my own struggle" was actually recorded somewhere else. That my very site on it's own is realize within the inductive/deductive features where the need to relate too, demanded in my metaphoric relation to science as to how I was interacting with the world around me.

Now again I caution people to know that I am not saying I have this "topic related" other then to say "I see the world from the inside out." And that if you can digest this last statement then you will see what is happening a lot within this site I created, has some correlation within the study of others. I had no idea of these correlations until the words themselves help me to spot the nature of my own expressions.

I do take comfort from the fact Marcia Smilack recognized my language immediately, and that finally I was not alone in my attempts. With all my procrastination on explaining myself received, could finally have dealt with what had give me my views on science.

So I will demonstrate and "turn around a cartoon I seen" to help one understand "how I see" and then you see this cartoon in relation to it's owner's representation for comparison. It is a difference in how "my subjective views" are held in correlation to the original viewers own anecdotal evidence.

Monday, February 26, 2007

As one visits the mathematical puzzles and conjectures, what value these insights to the physics or our universe if we did not see things in this way? As artifacts of some other kind of geometrical thinking that we could then apply it to how we see the micro-perspective and macro-perspective working within the Quantum or cosmological realms?

So abstract and foreign to our eyes that we let it escape our attention while we talk about all our theoretical points of view and divergences from what is symmetrical?

I thought it important to quickly post this so that people understand that "a glass case" can hold many things for inspection, but in this case ,I was referring to the geometrical forms. If any of these form were to show symmetry in action which of these would do so? Sylvestor surfaces?

An attempt in Latex to map these functions from a layman's perspective. What use if I cannot understand the mathematical language as it is written, yet, I can see "acrobatically" the way geometry works in space?

Sunday, February 25, 2007

I am not sure how this post is to unfold, yet in my mind different exercises were unfolding as to how I should explain it. Can I come from an artist's perspective I wondered? Say "by chance" anything that seems relevant here in writing, and any relation to science "is" metaphorical by nature?

Does one want to gleam only what is coming across in geometrical form as a painting without understanding the depth of the artist in expression? Some may say, why any association at all, and just leave science to what it knows best without implicating any theoretical positions with the thought pertaining to gravity here.

Yes that's why I selected the title of this post as thus, and why I am going to give perspective to what I may, "as artist in writing" see with these words, and then you decide whether it is useful to you.

The Field as the Plane

An ancient thought penetrated my thinking as I thought of "the field" that a society can work in agriculture, and yet, by definition it was the plane, "length and width" that was also appealing here. I did not want to loose it's "origination" while I moved any thinking to the "abstract of brane" and the like, without firmly attaching it to the ground.

But who was to know that this plane could be moved to any "fifth dimensional understanding" without having studied the relationship to dimensional thinking and the like. The physics elevated.

I allow this one time escapism to "other thinking" to demonstrate what use the colour of gravity implies while at the same time "theoretical positions" talk about it's place in the universe. If one did not accept the moves in science and the way it expressed itself to allow geometrical inclination, then how the heck could non-euclidean thinking ever make it's way into how we will discuss "the fields" about us?

It meant that a perspective "on height" be adopted? As an observer I was watching from a position. While in that sleeping/dosing state, I wondered how else to express myself as these concepts were amalgamating themselves into a "conceptual frame of reference?"

The picture of the field(I am referring to the ancient interpretation) continued in my mind, and "by abstract" I thought to introduce a line extend from the centre of this field upward. So here I am looking at this field before me. Now I had wondered off previous by bring "the brane" in here, yet is not without that sight I thought how the heck could any idealization so ancient make sense to what the colour of gravity to mean.

While correlating Newton's work here and the "extra dimensional thinking," I also wanted to include the work of the "Alchemist Newton". "To expand" the current thinking of our "emotive states" as a "vital expression of the biological being."

Draw into any further discussion of the "philosophical or other wise," these views of mine which are a necessary part of what was only held to a "religious and uneducated evolutionary aspect of the human being."

A cosmologist may still say that such thoughts of Einstein used in this vain is wrong, but I could never tear myself away from the views of "durations of time."

So by having defined the "frame of reference," and by introducing "Colour of gravity" I thought it important and consistent with the science to reveal how dynamical any point within that reference can become expressive. The history in association also important.

So you tend to draw on your reserves for such comparatives while thinking about this. I knew to apply "chemical relations" to this idea, and the consequential evidenced, by the resulting shadings by adding. I wanted to show "this point" moving within this colour space and all the time it's shading was describing the "nature of the gravity."

By adding that vertical line in the field, the perimeter of my field of vision had to some how be drawn to an apex, while all kinds of thoughts about symmetry and perfection arose in my pyramidal mind.

All these colours, infinite in their ability to express the human emotive state, as a consequence of philosophical and expressed as function of the emotive being?

the quantum entanglement would become so spread out through these interactions with the environment that it would become virtually impossible to detect. For all intents and purposes, the original entanglement between photons would have been erased.

Never the less it is truly amazing that these connections do exist, and that carefully arranged laboratory conditions they can be observed over significant distances. They show us, fundamentally, that space is not what we once thought it was. What about time?Page 123, The Fabric of the Cosmo, by Brian Greene

So many factors to include here, yet it is with the "idea of science" that I am compelled to see how things can get all mixed up, while I say emotive state, or Colours of gravity?

It gets a little complicated for me here, yet the "Fuzzy logic" introduced or "John Venn's logic" is not without some association here. Or, the psychology I had adopted as I learnt to read of models and methods in psychology that could reveal the thinking we have developed, and what it included.

Least I forget the "real entanglement" issues here, I have painted one more aspect with the "Colour of Gravity" to be included in this dimensional perspective, as we look to the models in science as well?

Working from basic principles and the history of spooky has made this subject tenable in today's world. A scientist may not like all the comparisons I have made based on it, I could never see how the emotive and mental statements of the expressive human being could not have been included in the making of the reality.

That I may of thought the "perfection of the human being" as some quality of the God in us all, would have granted sanction to some developing view of "religious virtuosity," against the goals of the scientist. So as ancient the views painted, there was something that may have been missed of the "Sensorium," and goes toward the basis of the philosophy shared currently by Lee Smolin.

This entanglement to me is a vital addition to our exploration of the universe. Our place and observation within it? It did not mean to discount our inclusion within it, within a larger "oscillatory perspective."

While reading the responses to Aaron on the Cosmic Variance section, Lee Smolin made a comment there in his writing which triggered some recognition as I was doing some research on what he had proposed in previous work. So of course I am interested in how people form their ideas, so I went to have a look.

The critic is very harsh toward Lee Smolin, and I am very sensitive to these kinds of responses, so trust me when I tell you that these are not my views. My views are still forming.

Lee Smolin:

For Newton the universe lived in an infinite and featureless space.There was no boundary, ad no possibility of conceiving anything outside of it. This was no problem for God, as he was everywhere. For Newton, space was the "sensorium" of God-the medium of his presence in and attachment to the world. The infinity of space was then a necessary reflection of the infinite capacity of God.The Life of the Cosmos By Lee Smolin Oxford University Press; New York, N.Y.: 1997, Page 91

The term "Sensorium" is compelling for reasons that I am still not quite aware of, yet, it holds a fascination to me. It is colourful to me, yet, it had a nice ring to it as well.

Okay. :) I think it is the "relationship pointed out" and describing this relationship of Newton that is interesting. Most who have been reading my site will have some inkling of why.

It is not in what may be assumed of Newton and his religion towards the relationship to science? But some of the ways in which such "thought processes" may have been compelling. The way in which one can look at the world, gives new meaning to what was not so transparent before, now one included these aspects of the sensorium as "one."

That all of the senses had been "crossed wire to give perspective" in the way it did. How would you know this?

But lets move on with this here for a minute and I'll tell you why. But first some part of it's Definition from Wikipedia.

Part of the developing scientific view can come forth with new propositions if it has a foundation that is different then what was thought to be "it's basis of normalcy."

But imagine if you were a little different in your wiring that as a scientist you had difficult relating to the world, and you want to be consistent with your approach? Develope new methods, Calculus, to explain a process in nature? What may I ask will be forth coming form such a position, not to have thought, "hey this guy is nuts or just a broken flower pot?"

The track record so far seems to indicate that if such views are crossed wired in some ways, the interactive features of developing perspective will give model apprehension a new meaning that it did not have before?

Feynman in his concepts of a toy model approach? He may of seen what was of use from Dirac's geometrical thinking.

If you get the chance take a look over at the post "Supernova 1987A" done by Stefan of Backreaction in regards to this issue. It is nice to be able to reflect where one was when such a event took place. Maybe you remember where you were and can comment?

About the event itself I must say it has not triggered any remembrances other then what I choose to reflect on my own life, and that's something different.

What is of interest to be is how these events unfold and what geometrics play within the design of this unfoldment. I do speak on that in various posts.

Kepler's Supernova

Four hundred years ago, sky watchers, including the famous astronomer Johannes Kepler, were startled by the sudden appearance of a "new star" in the western sky, rivaling the brilliance of the nearby planets. Now, astronomers using NASA's three Great Observatories are unraveling the mysteries of the expanding remains of Kepler's supernova, the last such object seen to explode in our Milky Way galaxy.

This combined image -- from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope, Hubble Space Telescope, and e Chandra X-ray Observatory -- unveils a bubble-shaped shroud of gas and dust that is 14 light-years wide and is expanding at 4 million miles per hour (2,000 kilometers per second). Observations from each telescope highlight distinct features of the supernova remnant, a fast-moving shell of iron-rich material from the exploded star, surrounded by an expanding shock wave that is sweeping up interstellar gas and dust.

By designing the types of satellites we wish to use to measure, we create the image of the events as beautiful pictures of unfoldment within our universe as seen above. Maybe you can see something in "the theory proposed of SN1987a pictures" that will help understand what I mean?

This universe has events at a time in space, which allows us to construct this event as as geometrical function. Some of the values seen in the microscopic world have placed an interesting role for me in how I see this relationship of what unfolds within our microperspective views, as to what is on display in our cosmos.

While I appreciate these events in the cosmos I also needed to understand how such microperspective were motivating the geometry within that event, so it is not possible for me not to include the arrangements of the physics of reductionism and not compare it to these motivations that create these beautiful events

Update: It's 9:20 am and I was just over at Quasar9's blog and notice this entry in relation to SN1987a as well.

Friday, February 23, 2007

"Yet I exist in the hope that these memoirs, in some manner, I know not how, may find their way to the minds of humanity in Some Dimensionality, and may stir up a race of rebels who shall refuse to be confined to limited Dimensionality." from Flatland, by E. A. Abbott

One of my greatest "aha moments" came when I realized Non-euclidean geometries. I had to travel the history first with Giovanni Girolamo Saccheri, Bolya and Lobachevsky, for this to make an impression, and I can safely say, that learning of Gauss and Riemann, I was truly impressed.

Einstein had to include that "extra dimension of time." Greater then, or less then, 180 degrees and we know "this triangle" can take on some funny shapes when you apply them "to surfaces" that are doing funny things.?:)

Let me just say that "it is not the fact that any drinking could have held the mind" of the person, but when they absentmindedly threw their car keys. The "point is" that if the light shines only so far, what conclusion should we live with?

Moving to the Fifth

So of course whatever real estate you are buying, make sure the light is shining on what your willing to purchase? Is this not a good lesson to learn?

Moving any idea to a fifth dimension I thought was important in relation to seeing what Einstein had done. See further: Concepts of the Fifth Dimension. I illustrate more ways in which we may see that has not been seen for most could have helped the mind see how this is accomplished in current day geometric methods.

Why was this thought "wrong" when one may of thought to include "gravity and light" together, after the conclusion of spacetime's 3+1? Gravity. What Had Maxwell done? What Had Riemann done?

You knew "the perfect symmetry" had to be reduced to General Relativity?

I was talking about some things in terms of the computerization that had gone to another level in perspective(gravitational entanglement). It was about how "technologies can change" while we had been held to a certain kind of thinking. While the limitations held us too, "not knowing what computerization may bring."

Who would have ever thought that such "concepts that moved from my mind had some relation to the world at large in our emotive consequences?" That from such thinking, I would adopt fictional perspective to help me deal with what the advancements may be in the computerized world?

I already had to know of the development in terms of entanglement's issues, to move it one step further not only in my thinking, but in understanding that as you adopt model apprehensions, how shall these lead you to conclude that the physics in association, had some relevance to it.

The cosmologist may say that indeed the gravitational consequences and waves have as yet to be considered, but, if held to the photon in it's affect in such a gravitational field, then what would we want from such a graviton condensation?

It's colouring?

So of course it is appropriate that I show you the comment I made above, and then you judge for your self the thought I held in fiction, in relation to this article below as I am making that statement.

I am following behind on the different posts that I wanted to write. One of them in relation to the descent of a "measure gatherer" (sounds primitive doesn't it?) and the sound values produced from that "descent on Titan." Can make it "sound ancient" while current research is of value.

Almost, as if one is a cave dweller blowing dried paint over their hands, could possibly be thinking of fire and rays cast while their own shadows made them think of a sun that can enter the cave, and chains that need to be broken from thinking so circumspect..:)

The second one I wanted to talk about was in relation to Themis and the Aurora Borealis. The labels will hopefully help with my previous research that I had done as well as other perspectives that allowed me to see this sun earth relationship. Quasar has currently dealing with that topic further in "Coronal Mass Ejection" as well and Backreaction entitled, "NASA launch of THEMIS Satellite."

Anyway on to the essence of this post and why it is troubling to me. Many would not know what goes on in my head as I am currently looking at the relationship of the Bose Nova to the jet productions that issue from such spiralled tendency. Accretion disc and the idea of such spiralling, to a pipe that follows to making anti-matter productions?

See Water in Zero Gravity, by BackreactionHow did this all arise? So you see such an idea of the sphere in a vacuum is a point from which to begin the search for things that were not there before, so we now know that such collisions can indeed produce "new" information?

The action taken, although seems related to what Arivero is saying, and of course I already have much on this in terms of Han Jenny, and the taking of the Chaldni plate to spherical relations. As an experiment with a "balloons and dyes using sound" similar to "sand on that same chaldni plate."

There has been some contention about the results, but this is far from what I wanted to show in terms of the geometrics involved. Patience as to the energy produced from this interaction of "sound on the surface transferred inside" to cause a spherical collapse.

Seeing the tensorial action on the bubble moving sound inside, I had wondered about how such a collapse could increase the temperatures involved to produce this "super higgs fluid." Lubos Motl never gave this much thought and I of course am impressionable when it comes to the science mind. I could not shake it.

So we "assign fluids" as one might the "vacuum in space" to illustrate what we have as our way with these bubbles? These claims have not been fantastical other then what the science had been designed for, yet I am drawn to the schematics and geometrics.

So yes the ways in which the size of the blackhole could all of sudden collapse is critical here, to producing further results in what is required of the new physics? So looking for "such experimental processes" is always part of my resolve to understand the geometrics involved.

So the idea here that was troubling was the way in which the symmetry was broken in terms of the fluid flows demonstrated by the Broken Symmetry examples.

My perception is much different here in that the dynamical relation of "the super fluid", may have it's correlation in the Navier stokes equations. This is by "insinuation on my part." How preposterous such a thing to think that the conditions had to be "spelt out first" in order for us to understand the "new physics" beyond the standard model?

Using the geometrical basis of my thought pattern established as a point in a circle, or a point with "no boundary", it seems it is very difficult to talk about the universe if one does not include the way in which such dynamicals can perpetuate the energy within this system.

How is one suppose to find "a equilibrium" in such a "low entropic state?"

If we were to experimentally challenging any thinking with "relativistic processes" how could they have ever emerged out of the BB? Maybe, it was a "highly symmetric event" for any asymmetry to show itself as "discrete measures" defined in relation to the "energy of probable outcomes?"

Where did such reductionism begin for us to ask about the "cross over?"

We needed high energy perspective to realize that we were still talking about the universe. Are there any other processes within the cosmos that can be taken down to such rejuvenated qualities to new universes being born that while the arrow of time is pointed one way, that the universe itself allowed such expression to continue in the expansion rate, and the speed up?

A Higg's fluid? Something had to be "happening now" that would dictate?

Forgive me here for my ignorance in face of those better equipped.

So you are looking for "this point" where things cross over? It is highly supersymmetric, yet, we know that such matter states have been detailed and defined as "discrete" asymmetric matter states.

I made a comment above that needed to be looked at again so I am placing it here while it suffers it's fate in another location. The basis of the argument is an ole one indeed that has long been exchanged by Smolin and Susskind.

Now it is again one of those things that I am trying to make sense of while one could go off in a philosophical direction. While the "facts of the matter" and experimental results dictate my thinking here.

It's the fault of that ole' Platonic thinking, and the Pythagorean basis of the universe in expression thingy. The universe is very dynamical geometrically while one debates the essence of inflation and disregards what allows such an expression to bring "other ideas" into the fold. How this "eternal idea" can bring other factors in terms of the speed up into consideration, while one ponders why such a thing is happening?

Just another fancy way of looking at CNO and the law of Octaves? :) While some thought space was empty, there were aspects of that space "which was alive" regardless of the asymmetrical realization of the discrete matters?

So we want to define our relationship with the world in some computerized method? It has always been something of a struggle to explain how one may see the world as they lose the focus of distinctive sight and hearing and soon realize that if they are all amalgamated, you might get this idea of the gravitationally inclined atomized in some computerized process? Feelings?:)

You finally learnt something about yourself?

A thought crossed my mind. A fictional story?

It’s interesting what calorimetric measure can do when you are looking at cosmological events. So, the photon becomes descriptive in itself?

You are working “to set” the course of events? So we have this description then of the universe and it’s “phase transitions.” It’s behind the “value of the photon in it’s description and escape velocity” and it’s value also “gravitationally linked?”

So technology now stops the photon in flight? We can then “colour our views with the gravitationally inclined?”:) A “philosophical take” on new computerized development with feeling?

The leading computer technologies here is not to diverge from what I moved too in terms of understanding the human condition. This is very important to me, and includes not only our biological functioning, but our resulting affect from the physiological one as well.

So while "you think" I hope to chart the colours spectrally induced oscillatory universe from the "photon stop over" and subsequent information held in that abeyance. Sure it's a story of fiction right now, but in time I would like to see this connection to reality.

It may only rest at this time in conceptual framework that was constructed from what was available in the physics and science at our disposal, while I had to move forward slowly.

It was important to understand why there would be such divergences in perspective and how these would be lined up? Some of course did not want to take the time, but it was important to me to understand the "philosophical position" taken.

One could just as well venture to the condense matter theorist and said, what building blocks shall we use? One should not think the "history of Platonism" without some "other influences" to consider. Least you assign it to a "another particular subject" in it's present incarnation? An Oscillatory String Universe?

So the evolution here is much more then the "circumspect of the biological function," but may possible include other things that have not been considered?

Physiologically, the "biological function" had some other relation? So abstract that I assigned the photon? So I said "feelings," while Einstein might assigned them to a "short or long time" considering his state of mind? :)

More thought of course here on the "fictional presentation" submitted previous. As a layman I have a problem in that regard. :)

So no one knows how to combine thermodynamics and general relativity? Hmmm....Boltzmann puzzle..hmmmmm...and I slowly drift off in thought.

How does relativity ever arise out of such a situation? If "tunnelling was to occur" where would it occur, and where would "this equilibrium" find comparative Lagrangian relations in the universe? These perspectives are leading to what we see in the WMAP polarization patterns?

Are there not "comparative features" that allows for the low entropic states, within the existing universe? Allows us to return to those same entropic states in their respective regions, while "feeding" the universe?

You had to look for the conditions that would be similar would you not? And "supporting evidence" to explain the current universe speeding up. These conditions would have to support that contention.

I am holding off producing any new posts until I can bring the discussion to a suitable ending where Lee Smolin admits the ideas are not yet completed in terms of of our understanding of the landscape?

Clifford has a good humour post about real estate in the extra dimensions. Of course you had to follow other discourses here to understand how one may view what is "current in the thinking?"

This "balance in perspective" is not just one or the other but on how such perspective is formed around it. So on the one hand you have this Anthropic approach in string theory, and then you have the "philosophical differences on the other?"

Your trying to explain it and in so doing revealing the train of thought that was established. One does not disavow the road leading to the physics established of course, and no where is this intentional on differing perspectives

There is a question looming on my mind abut what reality is? There is the idea of the "infinite regress" of all particle reductions as we venture to "what may be" the first cause?

It is not necessary for me to hold any views of religious intent here other then to say that any person is quite capable of acting as the student and placing in front of them what the answer to that question of reality is. Then it becomes to them what they have satisfied what reality had explained.

Now this is not easy for me to answer such a question, and think about what had come before? In terms of those who asked this same question of the self, and what it may mean to you. Who am I. What makes "you" who you are?

So is it subjective that first cause may have something in association with the cosmology at large, in this question as to how the universe came into being, or is it a redundant feature to ask such a question and just accept what is?

If we are "not aware" does the universe end? Do the fundamental laws of science not exist because you do not exist?

While I do not have time to complete this post I am going to add to it because there are concepts that are very appealing here in our investigations that serve to be looked at. I do not contest any fundamental constant here, other then to look at them as comparative features of our association with the natural world.

This post on the Multiverse of mine, may be an "psychological interpretation" here that I would like to bring forward. This may be distasteful for people of science. Please bear with me as I try to explain myself, and not sanction me to a site that has issues with "ten dimensions and and quantum tunnelling?":)

The Flower as a Universe in Expression

So I will open the above with an example of one of the flowers done up with regards to Mandalic interpretations. This has been part of my research to understand the "individuality of each persons expression" from the inside out. As if, one understood the "liminocentric structure" develop from the schematic of the "circle with a point" in it, "to a point" with a boundary condition that is contained, as an equation of E=mc2.

AS well the student here is learning to give credence to a "way of enlightenment" that foreshadows what can exist as "this schematic mathematical diagram," could find itself looking quite nicely in such a expression as that of a flower.

I think one can be detracted by good pictures as to the originality of how we might see the universe in expression. So "without further explanation" we might say yes indeed they are good pictures of flowers without understanding the inheritance of the explanation forth coming.

So the idea here is not to be judgemental of the "book by it's cover" until one has considered the explanation that is forthcoming. As one weights what the expression of any universe can mean, while within it, there are evidences for the possibilities of what exists as our own universe, was granted a design, as one might grant each galaxy in expression?

Take an event within the colliders and tell how each will react according to the energies used?

I may have been attracted to this one for consideration by implicating the "music of the spheres" in my previous comments so however words are transported back and forth between scientists, or "the insinuation" of JoAnne of Cosmic Variance has for it, I cannot help the way I see.:)

OKay now. On to the explanation, as I have learnt to understand it, and then, what ever fate I have assigned to me and this becomes the way of it for me? Cracked flower pot and all.

Bubble Nucleation

During a first-order phase transition, the matter fields get trapped in a `false vacuum' state from which they can only escape by nucleating bubbles of the new phase, that is, the `true vacuum' state. See here for correlating Post.

Now is it enough that I identify the "source of such expressions" to advance the "geometrical inherent of form" as a universe in expression? So where did this design come from. How could anything issue from such "chaos implied in all the possibilities" that we might have the universe we did in this one?

So by looking at the picture below you get this sense of why the "sombrero as a hat" serves us well to explain the nature of gravitational considerations while this "collapse of the sphere" can produce all kinds of models of geometrical expressions, as a Calabi Yau?

The "landscape" has been something of a issue, as I have travelled through the last couple of years, watching scientists go back and forth in debate. They have their reasons why of course.

I will not assign "a label" although I use them here in this blog "to categorize the times that I have ventured onto a particular subject." I will not succumb to "any categories" that insinuate that "one group of scientists belong to let's say the "Templeton Foundation" and thusly criticize them, as being insignificant and deluded. "Founding a movement" to change society other then, what society wants itself to become.

So by characterization I have learnt to not hold any woman or man to the "fate of character alone," or the "choices they make." But to see the basis of science is continually being adhered to on a level of "correlation of cognition." Given, the experiment and facts, what does one conclude to do while they venture forward? What do they pull toward them, as they theorize about the science?

How is their philosophy imbued them to speak, while there is this underlying mathematical basis to the world? Is it all "flowery or drawn to the arts" that it detracts from the science? Are there not ways that art helps science visualize what has come from their thought processes?

So Tegmark saids,"the universe is not a bagel?" And we have all these ideas about the "shape of the universe." Cosmology likes em large, while the Calabi Yau-ist like it small? Okay, not small, but descriptively unique?

Thursday, February 15, 2007

So on the one hand you know that there are higher energies with which you can contend with as you look above toward the cosmos. While on earth, our ability to discern the nature of, is limited by by that same energy.

So by conclusion, and what has recently been built in LHC is ready to go on line, asks that what limitations are place on us in our investigations(energies) will need "ever higher energies" to push that perspective.

Stellar Music

Involving other parameters in the developing views of the Cosmos, I thought it nice to also present the following article From Seed Magazine. It would be true to my inherent makeup, that such a view also be encouraged, as we listen to the "Harmonies of the spheres?" How fine our hearing then, that to confuse our picture of the universe, while there are now ways in which one with Synesthesia can make sense?

One might entertain the idea of those in science then who have progressed well, have this "ability to see" as Dirac did? Or Feynman, in the forming of the "toy models" for a consensus, as to the ability of interactions, no less then the model of the string theorist to display this in some interactive design?